Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed
Here, by way of this
EFF advisory, is Apple's
plea to the Library of Congress [PDF] against a DMCA exemption which
would allow jailbreaking on locked phones. "The acts of
circumvention that the exemption would permit would result in infringing
uses of copyrighted firmware stored on smart phones and of copyrighted
content that runs on those phones, thereby failing the fundamental
prerequisite requirement of Section 1201(a)(1)(B) for an exemption.
Although that fact alone should preempt any need for further consideration,
the proposed exemption should also be rejected because of a host of bad
consequences that will flow from it. In the case of the iPhone, it will
destroy the 'chain of trust' that Apple has carefully engineered into the
product to protect users from serious functional problems that often result
from unauthorized modifications to the device's OS."
(Log in to post comments)
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 16:50 UTC (Fri) by heinlein (guest, #1029) [Link] Personally, I think iPhone users ought to be able to gain control of their hardware. Period. There's a legitimate question of public interest here, however, if you change the metaphor a bit. The EFF says that Apple's argument can be translated into automotive terms: One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit. There's only a partial truth here. No one should be legally prevented from modifying his own vehicle -- but that doesn't mean that everyone who modifies a vehicle should be allowed to operate it on public roads. iPhones are not simply private computing devices. They also operate on a shared, crucial telephony infrastructure. It's legitimate to ask how "street legal" translates into telephony. Apple's problem is that it thinks it should be the arbiter here, hence the appeal to the DMCA. No private entity should have that right. So who should? What entity defines and enforces the public good in telephony infrastructure?
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 17:09 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
In the US, the FCC. They're the ones who set the regulations for use of wireless technologies, so it's they who should determine whether modifications to a device are "broadcast legal" or not. And lucky for us, they already have.
So, really, any modification which does not change how the device transmits and receives radio waves in such a way that it violates FCC regulations for that class of device should be allowed.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 17:16 UTC (Fri) by gurulabs (guest, #10753) [Link]
"iPhones are not simply private computing devices. They also operate on a shared, crucial telephony infrastructure. It's legitimate to ask how "street legal" translates into telephony."
Phhhhfff.
Windows Mobile and PalmOS smartphones have allowed "bare metal" access for years with 10s of millions of devices sold. The "crucial telephone infrastructure" has done just fine.
All modifications are "street legal" as long as they don't modify the radio operations.
-Dax Kelson
AND, ... Posted Feb 13, 2009 17:20 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
back to the "car analogy": it's the responsibility of the owner to comunicate to the DMV any "non-street-legal" mods she does in her car, and it's the DMV/PD responsibility to ensure that "non-street-legal" cars do not drive in the streets.
IOW: the FCC (in the US) could go after people who modify their phones so they are not anymore in accordance with its regulations, and operate them in the network. Others should be AOK.
Budget and DMCA corporate welfare Posted Feb 13, 2009 18:06 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] As Tim Lee at the Cato Institute has pointed out, the question isn't just what is good and bad policy, but what policy should the government spend your tax dollars to enforce?Is the DMCA's business benefit to Adobe great enough to justify the "subsidy" cost of the Dmitry Sklyarov trial? Is the subsidy to Apple great enough to justify the cost of the Ashton Kutcher trial?
Budget and DMCA corporate welfare Posted Feb 17, 2009 11:06 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]
Don,
You missed one point there. The questions surrounding enforcement priorities are completely invalid if the issue at hand is bad policy (especially if it runs counter to the public good).
While arguments about enforcement priority are interesting in cases where a given law serves legitimate public interest, they are a reeking red herring when that is not the case. A "good law" can be effectively unenforceable if the cost/benefit ratio of that enforcement is high enough.
However, this is not a "good law."
DMCA is very bad public policy. It creates a huge incentive for companies to attempt many abusive forms of "vendor lock-in" and criminalizes many creative ways in which people might attempt to use and modify devices which they have purchased.
To strain the widely over-used automotive analogy a bit here is as if there was a law making it illegal to pick or otherwise circumvent a padlock. So car manufacturers start putting padlocks on the hoods of their vehicles and keeping the keys. It clearly does not serve the public's legitimate interests to keep people from choosing their own mechanics, their own brands of spark plugs, oil, and so on. In fact it would be considered an absurd injustice to arrest and try someone for cutting the lock off his own car. Beyond that the very notion of someone buying a car but being locked out of it ... and for it to be a criminal offense for him or her to gain access to his own property ... is absurd.
All efforts to do this with software are ultimately doomed. However, the effort has done tremendous harm to the public ... and will continue to do so until these policies are changed and the DMCA, in particular, is repealed.
Budget and DMCA corporate welfare Posted Feb 17, 2009 20:13 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Good point. The subsidy to Apple and Adobe has to be balanced against (1) The harm to customers and the public domain they use (2) The value that would have been created by the startups that anticircumvention suppresses (3) The costs of providing security coverage and administration for non-upgradeable, DRM-enforced technologies (4) The cost of works lost to users and libraries because they're not legally copyable when original media fails...and not just (5) the cost of enforcement.And that's not even counting the political risks of non-quotable, take-backable speech by politicians.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 20:40 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Since the software in question does not run on the baseband processor a better analogy would be changing the car seat seat covers.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 4:12 UTC (Sat) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Jailbreaking the phone doesn't affect the baseband processor at all, and the main processor that applications (Jailbroken or otherwise) run on can't really cause the baseband to do anything that would harm the operation of the cellular network. Thus there's no "integrity of the cellular network" argument against jailbreaking. That's most likely a significant part of the reason that they are separate processors with separate memory.The argument Apple is trying to make is more like GM arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to install your own radio in the GM car in place of the factory radio, because it would somehow make the car unsafe and thus hazardous to the public. Installing the radio doesn't affect the drive train, so it won't affect the roadworthiness of the car. (Of course, with either the factory radio or an aftermarket one, the driver could turn up the volume too loud or otherwise use it in a manner that distracts him or her from driving, which would be unsafe, but that's not fundamentally changed by replacing the radio.)
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 19:09 UTC (Sat) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]
This argument was reduced to smoldering rubble more than 40 years ago with the Carterphone.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 20:15 UTC (Fri) by mrjk (subscriber, #48482) [Link]
The Chain of Trust point is ridiculous also. In fact you could argue that it would ENHANCE the chain
of trust people have in Apple if third parties were able to mess with the iPhone with legal impunity. Apple could say - just use the apps we provide and those we give our seal through our app store, and you can have that trust. Otherwise you are on your own, or in the hands of others.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 3:32 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
The chain of trust is already "busted" in the sense they're claiming. They're just trying to make it illegal to take advantage of the weaknesses in that chain.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 21:22 UTC (Fri) by ssam (subscriber, #46587) [Link]
If you want full control of your phone then don't buy an iPhone (or a G1 or almost any other phone). Either get an openmoko, or live with a locked up phone.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 21:49 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] Or, you could buy an iPhone (or a G1 or almost any other phone), and then hack it so it's no longer locked up.And then give money to the EFF to help ensure that modifying a device you bought and own to be more useful isn't declared illegal!
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 13, 2009 21:57 UTC (Fri) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] You can buy an unlocked G1.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 14:26 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
More relevantly you can buy (as mentioned in a previous thread) Google's developer phone which is essentially identical to the G1 except that it's more expensive (no subsidy for locking you into a provider) and you have the same relationship as with a typical PC - it's yours, you can do what you like (e.g. write your own OS) with it subject to the usual constraints of law and your conscience.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 21:34 UTC (Sat) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]
> Google's developer phone which is essentially identical to the G1
> except that it's more expensive
Define "more expensive". Doesn't this depend on your phone usage ?
T1 mobile + 40$ monthly plan = 180 + 40*12*2 = 1140 $ for 2 years.
This could give you a G1 dev phone + over 7 100$ refill on a T-mobile prepaid plan: http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Prepaid-Plans.aspx
i.e. ca 8000 minutes. If you call less than 11 min per day on average (like me), you're better with a G1 dev phone. And it's unlocked.
Note: I am not living in the US, I just tried to find something I would use if I was in the US. There are maybe non T-mobile cheaper pre-paid plans as well.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 15, 2009 5:38 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The G1 is a GSM phone.
The unlocked version is not tied in any way, shape, or form to T-Mobile.
If your in the USA you can use it with AT&T if you want, or the small handful of other GSM using cell phone service providers.
Cell phone providers outside the USA are generally all GSM and use frequencies compatible with the G1. (check your local area..) So you can use your current provider or cell phone plan or any of the huge number of pre-paid phone/data cards available to folks outside the USA.
Anyways... Freedom isn't free. It never has been, nor will it ever be. So if you give a crap about having a open system to run your software on then the strongest signal you can give is to put your money were your mouth is. If it's not possible that is one thing, but it usually is.
T-mobile's plans, are in effect, trading you discounts for Freedom. How much are you really worth? Like I said it's one thing to not have choices, but it's another to have choices and pick simply based on cost.
Anyways...
I am not going to by a Android phone that is locked into a service or requires special signed firmware. It's just not worth it.
Buying a locked-down Android phone is worse then buying a iPhone, as far as a end user is concerned. You don't get any freedoms and the interface and the available software on the market isn't as good. If your going to buy a pair of handcuffs you might as well get the shiny pair.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 15, 2009 14:07 UTC (Sun) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
""
Buying a locked-down Android phone is worse then buying a iPhone, as far as a end user is concerned. ""
I disagree.
As far as an end user is concerned, she can't "just" upload music or videos to an iPhone using Linux - which applies as we are at LWN ;-). Nor do you have a physical keyboard.
Still regarding end users, AFAIK in the countries where they can get away with it, it seems that Apple/Telecoms actually plan to not release unlock codes to customers once their contract finishes.
Regarding the freedom point, you ought to reckon that the software platform is freely modifiable and redistributable, while the iphone's is proprietary; and that a sale of a "locked" G1 strengthens an open platform, an iphone's not so much.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 15, 2009 14:18 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Having choices and picking simply based on cost is worthwhile sometimes.
e.g. I use a locked-in pay-as-you-go non-free Nokia phone, and as I don't use *any* of its features bar a very little predictive text messaging and phone calls, nor can imagine myself ever using any of its other features (keyboards large enough and ergnomic enough not to trigger agonizing RSI are far too large for a mobile device), the non-freedom simply isn't an issue. I wouldn't want to do more with a freed phone than I currently do with a non-free one, and the non-free one does everything I need it to.
G1 GSM Posted Feb 17, 2009 12:37 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
One catch on the unlocked G1's GSM: its 3G support is limited to T-Mobile's US frequencies.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 4:35 UTC (Sat) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
There's another aspect of this not mentioned. There is a non-zero number of iPhones jail broken for the purpose of running cracked apps. There is probably a non zero number cracked just for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I would hope that as open developers we can acknowledge that this isn't respecting other people's copyright and is one activity that should be shunned.
Beyond running cracked apps, I don't really see much point of jail breaking an iPhone. The list of things that people can't do that they might want to do isn't that long and over time it's been getting shorter. People forget you couldn't even develop 3rd party apps for the blessed thing a year ago. The apps that were once getting rejected is getting far shorter than it once was. Besides given the apple SDK you can certainly create, run and install whatever.
I think there's larger problems here that are more deserving of time and attention. Is a jailbroken iPhone the solution to the way carriers sign you into a service plan in the US? Nope. Or break the carrier + hardware monopolies? Nope.
All that said, I'd like to see the DMCA struck down as much as the next person. Seems like politically these are the times to give it a try.
If Apple hauls someone into court using the DMCA for a jail broken phone, I'm going to pay careful attention for the reason of the complaint. It's easy enough to identify a jail broken phone after all. If it's just on account of a jail broken phone, ok yeah that's an evil use of the DMCA. If it's because they were say ripping off the App Store, then yeah, that's a legitimate complaint.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 5:01 UTC (Sat) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] Beyond running cracked apps, I don't really see much point of jail breaking an iPhone.I don't have an iPhone, but I do have an iPod Touch that was given to me as a gift and it is unusable from Linux unless you jailbreak it, and even then it is a real pain in the ass. As I understand it, the iPhone is the same. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 14, 2009 6:02 UTC (Sat) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
Well there isn't a native iTunes for linux. Your best bet is running iTunes on Wine.
Besides that with the SDK it wouldn't be that difficult to create your own MP3 player and sync to Linux. SMOP. The 2.2 audio apis are drop dead simple. I would highly doubt that apple would let you distribute the app but you never know. Apps that duplicate Apple functionality are appearing.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 17, 2009 12:34 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Last I checked, Wine is no help because it lacks the necessary USB support.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 17, 2009 16:01 UTC (Tue) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
The wine project accepts patches.
Perhaps it is a little ironic to complain as a community about jailbreaking the iPhone for the purposes of unbounded development, but on the other hand complain about wine where the source is fully available.
Open source only works when folks pitch in to help with something that is of importance to you.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 20, 2009 3:13 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]
> Perhaps it is a little ironic to complain as a community about
> jailbreaking the iPhone for the purposes of unbounded development, > but on the other hand complain about wine where the source is > fully available.
Your point would be what exactly? That a Free Software type should focus their efforts to get Wine up to being able to run the closed iTunes app that Apple will most likely break as soon as you get it running on Wine? And even if they don't break it as soon as it runs you still have a closed source app talking to a closed platform. A temporary solution at best.
I really don't understand the mental machinery of a Mac zealot posting on LWN, how you can doublethink your way around the contradictions. Maybe if you are a pure Open Source pragmatist you can avoid the head explodes part.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 20, 2009 3:58 UTC (Fri) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
> Your point would be what exactly?
My exact point would be when I hear a lot of griping about freedom and wanting to tinker with a device or system, it gets to be an interesting question as to how many of those individuals have invoked a compiler in the past week. Does it invalidate the 'right' of the smaller number of legitimate people? No. But neither does it invalidate the right of the designer of the device to create what was their vision, closed tho that may be.
> That a Free Software type should focus their efforts to get Wine up to
Indeed. But one does have to pick your battles in life. Likewise, crack a phone's OS where the crack has a limited useful life span, or maybe go with something from the get go where all the code is open? With that we kinda come full circle... there isn't much point to cracking an iPhone.
> I really don't understand the mental machinery of a Mac zealot posting
Yup Mac Zealot. Wonder what gave it away .. all these boxes of mine running Linux? Maybe it's those Linux patches I posted today... *sigh*
> Maybe if you are a pure Open Source pragmatist you can avoid the head explodes part.
How about if I rotate my head 360 degrees and spew green goo?
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 23, 2009 3:03 UTC (Mon) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Well, you ask how many of those who want to use their iPhone without running proprietary intrusive software like iTunes, and who have used a compiler last week? Since your rhetorically question is concerned to construct a straw men, let me answer it nevertheless: at least me.And, let me tell you: you are a deceiving member of the open source community, if you obviously don't even see that people might want to use their fully-paid hardware without resorting to lock-in software (iTunes et.al.) that only runs on closed-source operating systems and is security-wise extremely obnoxious. Lastly, but not respectfully, Sir, you show exactly one fact: We really need the functionality of KILL-files on LWN. Sigh, to paraphrase Henry: »Those who do not understand Usenet, are condemned to reinvent it, badly.«
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 21, 2009 20:06 UTC (Sat) by macros (subscriber, #6699) [Link]
Apple sending C&D letters to people trying to work on supporting the device in linux doesn't help at all.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 15, 2009 19:35 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
More people run cracked applications on Windows than on Linux. I say we forbid any further distribution of Windows as it encourages usage of illegal software by design.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 16, 2009 20:13 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Beyond running cracked apps, I don't really see much point of jail breaking an iPhone.There are many limitations of the iPhone that can only be circumvented by jailbreaking it. Want to run an applications that does something in the background? Can't do it without jailbreaking. Want to turn off the "phone" wireless, while keeping WiFi or Bluetooth active? Can't do it without jailbreaking. Want to use the iPhone as a means of internet access for your laptop or other devices? Can't do it without jailbreaking. (That may change in the future.) Want to be able to share data between two applications on the same iPhone? Can't do it without jailbreaking. The list of things that people can't do that they might want to do isn't that long and over time it's been getting shorter.No, it's getting longer, as people think up new things they'd like to do with the iPhone. Besides given the apple SDK you can certainly create, run and install whatever.Actually you can't. Applications you develop using the official SDK still run in a sandbox and have many limitations. The only limitation that compiling applications yourself with the SDK circumvents is that then Apple doesn't get a chance to disaspprove the application. I'm a codeveloper of some applications being sold in the app store. It's true that some people who jailbreak their phones might pirate my applications. Nevertheless, I don't think Apple should be able to use the DMCA to prevent jailbreaking phones in cases not involving piracy. As in the Betamax decision, the phone jailbreak has substantial noninfringing uses. Banning jailbreaking because some people use it to pirate applications would be like banning automobiles because some people use them as getaway cars for bank robbery.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 16, 2009 21:53 UTC (Mon) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
I don't think there is any debate that a jailbroken iPhone is able to do more things.
I do however believe that the assertion that are is a long list of things you can't do with the iPhone because it isn't jail broken is bunk.
> Want to turn off the "phone" wireless, while keeping WiFi or Bluetooth
Point.
> Want to use the iPhone as a means of internet access for your laptop or
All contracts aside that you've signed with AT&T saying you wouldn't.... actually you can do this without jail breaking. You forget there was even an app for sale at one time that did this.
> Want to be able to share data between two applications on the same
Technically you can. Granted it would be far better for Apple to have something built into the API. But again, the iPhone environment has evolved substantially over the past year.
Now will Apple beat random people over the head with the DMCA? We'll see. Given that Apple got the record labels to drop DRM I think they're a little more progressive then some might think they are.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 20, 2009 0:59 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]
Good list but you forgot the #1 reason someone might want to jailbreak an iPhone.
The iPhone is apparently a fairly nice hardware platform with good Internet connectivity. The only thing it lacks is a working web browser. Apple thinks you can have a browser in this web 2.0 age without the Flash plugin, Java, Acroread etc.
I swear, if somebody could get Adobe to license the Arm port of their plugin, bundled with one of the Moz based embedded browsers and have it 'just work' and sell it at a reasonable price it wouldn't matter whether it was in the official App Store or not. Apple would either relent and allow it to be sold or see half of iPhones jailbroken within a year.
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 16, 2009 21:00 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> Beyond running cracked apps, I don't really see much point of jail breaking an iPhone.
I jailbroke my phone so that I could run a VPN client I wrote[1] on it. I wrote that client for
Apple: why iPhone jailbreaking should not be allowed Posted Feb 17, 2009 4:18 UTC (Tue) by PLee (guest, #56686) [Link]
> Beyond running cracked apps, I don't really see much point of jail breaking an iPhone.
Mostly the point is to work around the restrictions put in place by the carrier. AppStore blocks such applications, but if you jailbreak the phone you can load anything.
For example, tethering a pc to the phone and running voip using a data connection rather than a voice connection isn't allowed (or attracts high data fees). However, put a sip proxy on the phone and you've set up two separate data flows - the tether is no longer there but you still get cheap voice calls. Apple is trying to protect the carrier against this as part of the deal that they will be the only network on which iPhones can be used.
Apple is in new territory here. With Mac's and ipods you've got expensive hardware with cheap, good software being the differentiator. This is a solid business model. The iphone is different.
With the iphone, the hardware is expensive, but they are also trying to control post-purchase behaviour. The problem is that iphones are "sold." They are in shops, in shopping centres and a "selling" environment. For Apple to turn around and say you can't mess with your own stuff doesn't really follow what people expect from a retail situation. If Apple's advertising was all phrased in terms of "rent an iphone" then fine, its clear it still belongs to Apple. You can't sell it and keep control.
Apple typically provides services around its products which people want, which are better than the competition and for which they can charge. e.g. calendar printing, It may be awkward but the user has the final say. Forcing people to do things goes beyond what even Apple normally do and will probably fail, as so many others have done.
Personally, I'm waiting for the hackintosh port to the G1...
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 16, 2009 0:24 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Specifically, it seeks through the proposed exemption to clear the path for those who would hack the iPhones operating system so that a proprietary mobile computing platform protected by copyright can be transformed into one on which any third party application can be run, without taking account of the undesirable consequences that would ensue from the transformation.
> The iPhone OS is based on Apples Mac OS XTM operating system (the OS used in Apples MacTM line of computers).
Apple take what others have written, but then deny others even the possibility of running independent software on that platform. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 16, 2009 21:57 UTC (Mon) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/index.action
First link, SDK. Free. Knock yourself out.
You should see what it's like making apps for other phones (Android and iPhone aside). Things have come a LONG way in the past year in this market.
Geesh.
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 16, 2009 22:38 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
What does the free SDK have to do with all this? Absolutely nothing:
"Apple's iPhone, now the best-selling cellular phone in the U.S., has been designed with restrictions that prevent owners from running applications obtained from sources other than Apple's own iTunes App Store."
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 17, 2009 6:01 UTC (Tue) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
If you're developing code or passing source around, one uses the SDK to put those apps onto your own iPhone/iPod Touch, no app store required.
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 17, 2009 10:52 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
<sarcasm>Really? SDK is used for software development. You don't say.</sarcasm>
So, a regular iPhone owner is going to use the SDK to get an application running on it? Please!
The point is that Apple are worse than Microsoft. They'll use any monopolistic practice in the book to exclude others from interoperating without paying rent (in this case the ugly DMCA - possibly the ugliest of all private monopolies). And all that while using open source software for the basis of all this. Pathetic.
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 18, 2009 0:12 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] tgall wrote:First link, SDK. Free. Knock yourself out. Let's see: Downloading the SDK requires first signing up as a "Registered iPhone Developer", right? That's what it says on the download page, and I see no other download options offered. iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, section 5, requires that developers' licensing "not purport to require Apple (or its agents) to disclose or make available any of the keys, authorization codes, methods, procedures, data or other information related to the Security Solution, digital signing or digital rights management mechanisms utilized as part of the Program". Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.4 impose severe limitations (1, 2) on what developed apps are allowed to do. Consequently, it seems to me, all iPhone apps are required to be proprietary (and doubly so under any copyleft licence with an anti-TiVoisation clause such as GPLv3) -- which explains why, among other things, even though there are four implementations of SSH for the iPhone, all of them ports of BSD-licensed code for *ix, not a single one of them is itself any type of open source whatsoever. Seems to me that denies "the possibility of running independent software on that platform" in any meaningful sense of that phrase (if that software is developed using the SDK). Am I missing something, or are you excluding open source from "independent software on that platform"? Rick Moen
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 20, 2009 4:31 UTC (Fri) by tgall (subscriber, #217) [Link]
I'm not sure that the authors of the GPL would consider themselves an "Open Source License" as compared to a "Free Software License". Still, I'm splitting hairs.
You're entirely right the iPhone is not friendly to GPLv3, but neither are all open source developers friendly to GPLv3. <shrug>
Your links as to SDK limitations were spot on accurate a year ago. Life has evolved, significantly which was part of why I piped up on this business in the first place. The momentum appears to be that things are opening up and getting more reasonable. Perfect? Heck no. Better? Yes. Getting worse? No.
Now will Apple plunk people over the head with the DMCA? Who knows. If it's going after those cracking apps, I really don't have a problem with that. Average random tinkerer on the street different story. Like I mentioned, Apple did get the music labels to drop drm. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
Does any of this detract from getting rid of the DMCA? I sure hope not. These are the times for that kind of effect to get going. That's the far more interesting conversation.
Ultimate irony Posted Feb 20, 2009 11:34 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] tgall wrote:I'm not sure that the authors of the GPL would consider themselves an "Open Source License" as compared to a "Free Software License". That and $1.50 will get you a ride on Muni. Even as a friend of Richard's, I'm not impressed at he and others at FSF spewing up clouds of rhetoric every time someone refers to one of their licences (or codebases) as "open source", when it is simply a fact that they are such (among other things that they are). You're entirely right the iPhone is not friendly to GPLv3, but neither are all open source developers friendly to GPLv3. This seems entirely and in fact flamboyantly irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can show that those "open source developers" are placing legal bars to anyone's development of GPLv3 software on an entire class of hardware devices. More to the point, Apple, Inc.'s legal restrictions appear to bar Registered iPhone Developers from releasing pretty much any iPhone application under any open source licence. Thus, for example, my observation about the SSH ports. I really don't think that's coincidence. Your links as to SDK limitations were spot on accurate a year ago. I'm unclear on whether you're saying that those various points about the SDK (and about the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement) are no longer applicable. Are you? Which ones? I'd be grateful to hear a rundown on the current situation -- with citations. Now will Apple plunk people over the head with the DMCA? Who knows Um, why don't you ask the PlayFair / JHymn developers? They have a long record on this matter, and it's not good -- without even counting their very recent, already infamous testimony before the Library of Congress DMCA regulations committee. Like I mentioned, Apple did get the music labels to drop drm. Gotta give credit where credit is due. I notice you keep changing the subject from what I spoke of, which was Apple's active measures to prevent third party development of open source apps on iPhones and iPod Touches (at least using the SDK). Now, you say there's been some... change? Improvement? It's "evolved", anyway, and I look forward to hearing what that means, specifically. But, to address your gratuitously changed topic, yes, after making a ton of money retailing DRMed music tracks from the labels, they "got" some (hardly all of) the labels to allow them to make a ton more money selling upgrades to "iTunes Plus" variants of the same tracks, this time without the DRM. I expect that they did this not to save the world, but rather to increase shareholder value. So, if you're going to try to argue that they're on the side of the angels on account of one of their highly successful upgrade sales offers, you really should try that line, instead, on someone who can't read SEC reports. ;-> Rick Moen
|
|||||||||||||